The dilemma in Swedish electricity policy is that we have three incompatible goals, of which only two are possible to reach at any given time. The goals are:

• No more exploitation of hydroelectric resources (=no more hydro).

• No more greenhouse gas emissions from power generation (=no natural gas).

• Nuclear phase-out (=no nuclear).

The problem is that the remaining renewable resources, the hydro, is completely off limits. Wind is a marginal resource in Sweden, 10 TWh (of which 1 TWh has been exploited) compared with our 140 TWh consumption.

Then we have conservation. The problem here is that the vast Swedish electricity consumption is mainly due to our heavy process industry, which is vital for the country and also very electricity efficient. That consumption can't be reduced.

So then they attack small consumers instead, slapping high electricity taxes on citizens which corporations don't have to pay. This policy has not managed to reduce consumption, only slow consumption growth. And one should remember that increasing electricity use is a good thing as long as total energy consumption is constant (as has been the case in Sweden for the last 30 years).

The only way to conserve power in Sweden is to reduce power production by closing nuclear reactors. This pushes the power price upwards, creating conservation. And at the same time, killing vital private industry.

Nice job.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.